[hitpointdrew]

I love this post. I know a decent amount of indie devs, I also have done some hobby game development myself. I see this alarming trend of devs and small studios that are, what I would call, hyper engaging with their players. I get it, the players are important, you want to sell the game, you want people to play it. But, the entitlement and feedback I have seen from some players is just ridiculous. Most players don't have the fist clue as to what makes a good game, or just how hard it actually is to make games. I feel like this post was very elegant way of basically saying "Shut the hell up, it's my game, I don't care what you want, I am making this game primarily for me. This is my art, and my way of expressing myself and sharing it with the world, this is not a collaboration. If you like it great, if you don't, oh well.", but in a much more palatable and acceptable manner.

[stuckinhell]

Indie game development isn't a hobby these days. Hence the hyper engagement, even big companies like Wendy's hyper engage people on twitter.

[hitpointdrew]

I don't think the level of engagement is helpful, in the end it makes a terrible hodgepodge product that no one really wants, especially the dev who had an idea for a game that has been co-opted into something very different by their "customers".

I am not saying devs shouldn't get feedback, I just don't think they should be taking feedback from EVERYONE.

Personally if I ever wanted to release a game I would never have a public discord where people could contact me. Would I have a private discord where some other indie devs I know are invited for feedback and play testing? Absolutely. But, I wouldn't just let anyone in there.

[axus]

Game devs can engage and have a back-and-forth, without incorporating anything into the game. It's socializing and information-sharing to grow an audience, not a collaborative effort.

[ricardo81]

Seems to be the case with many resurrected franchises, Star Trek coming to mind.

As a kid in the 80s/early 90s, games and series like these caught my imagination. They were fun. Probably fun, interesting and inspiring in different ways to different people.

Agree if we listened to everyone's refined version, we'd end up with a different game for everyone. In the end it's only meant to be entertainment.

[Beldin]

In all fairness: there is a difference between the original creator coming up with his/her own beloved continuation of a beloved project, and a soulless money grab by leveraging name recognition with an existing fan base. Irrespective of who is doing the soulless money grabbing (corporation, original creator, etc).

Return to Monkey Island comes across like the former (so far), various Trek and Wars continue-spinning-off-quels more like the latter.

[ricardo81]

True. Difficult comparison when the original creators are no longer around to create. Was just referring to strong fan positions.

[autoexec]

> Most players don't have the fist clue as to what makes a good game

that seems unfair. I think players (especially the kind who follow developers and make spend time posting online about games) do know what makes a good game. They know because they play title after title and see what works for them and what doesn't. The issue is that asking "What makes a good game" is much like asking what makes a good movie, or book, or romantic partner, or vacation. People are going to have very different ideas of what a good game is, but gamers are pretty damn savvy about what they love and about games in general.

That said, I agree with you that creators often go too far with player feedback. I think it's best for creators to make the games they would love, and if that doesn't lead to mainstream success that's fine, if real passion and love are put into a project there'll pretty much always be an audience out there who will appreciate it.